0
0.0
Jul 16, 2022
07/22
by
KQED
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
we're going to get into the law and the details of the law. but first, what does this moment mean to you personally? >> my life changed on that day in december 2012. i will never forget it. there's lots of days i wish i could forget it. but i established a bond with those families. and weeks later, with families i met in hartford, new haven, that was angry that i was showing up, caring about this issue when 20 white children had died when black children die every day in my state. that bond is something i never had before in my professional career. and i made a commitment to them that i was not going to give up until we passed legislation that made it less likely that those shootings and murders would happen. and there were a lot of days during the last ten years, where i wasn't sure whether we would ever be able to break the back of the gun lobby. whether we would ever be strong enough to pass laws that would save the lives of kids in this country. so, to be on the senate floor, delivering the passage of a bill that will save lives, it means s
we're going to get into the law and the details of the law. but first, what does this moment mean to you personally? >> my life changed on that day in december 2012. i will never forget it. there's lots of days i wish i could forget it. but i established a bond with those families. and weeks later, with families i met in hartford, new haven, that was angry that i was showing up, caring about this issue when 20 white children had died when black children die every day in my state. that...
67
67
Sep 16, 2015
09/15
by
KQED
tv
eye 67
favorite 0
quote 0
circuit in administrative law. he said that because he wanted to be is a be careful judge, do your jobs. >> rose: he was quoting eleven that will. >> and he was a great judge. the point eleven that will was trying to make is if you're a judge, act like a judge. there are all kinds of arguments around. it's your job to figure out what are the correct arguments, the correct interpretation of the statute. if you want to be a bad judge and you want not to try to figure out the case correctly -- >> rose: yes, but supreme court decisions have consequences. >> of course. of course, they do. and that's why you want to be a good judge. >> rose: but if judges pick what they -- you know, he says, you are a judge, that's what judges do, but they look to precedent and the fact that they're trying to create -- >> yes, my point simply is if you don't want to play the game properly, you don't need foreign law. there are many, many ways. you don't need foreign law to do the thing wrong. there many ways you can do the thing wrong. y
circuit in administrative law. he said that because he wanted to be is a be careful judge, do your jobs. >> rose: he was quoting eleven that will. >> and he was a great judge. the point eleven that will was trying to make is if you're a judge, act like a judge. there are all kinds of arguments around. it's your job to figure out what are the correct arguments, the correct interpretation of the statute. if you want to be a bad judge and you want not to try to figure out the case...
0
0.0
Feb 27, 2023
02/23
by
KQED
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
on law enforcement. that is something that is noted in some of the pushback against this legislation and also in feedback from law enforcement across the state. john: who is challenging it and where did the challenges stand? gabrielle: the challenges are ongoing. on the state level, we know the st. louis city, county, jackson county and other counties and cities across the state have joined in on a lawsuit pushing back on the act. also last year, the department of justice filed a lawsuit against the second amendment act, calling it invalid. attorney general merrick garland said it impedes on law enforcement operations in missouri and their ability to do their jobs. john: you mentioned hampering law enforcement's ability to do their jobs. how does this work in practice? gabrielle: i think the answer to that is twofold. if you were to google this law and law enforcement you would see stories of -- stories across the state of missouri where law enforcement officers are talking to a local journalist or seeki
on law enforcement. that is something that is noted in some of the pushback against this legislation and also in feedback from law enforcement across the state. john: who is challenging it and where did the challenges stand? gabrielle: the challenges are ongoing. on the state level, we know the st. louis city, county, jackson county and other counties and cities across the state have joined in on a lawsuit pushing back on the act. also last year, the department of justice filed a lawsuit...
20
20
Dec 11, 2021
12/21
by
KQED
tv
eye 20
favorite 0
quote 0
, the federal courts step in and block those laws. the state of texas is not responsible for enforcing the law. it has passed that task to any ordinary citizen. ordinary citizens cannot be taken to federal court. this was the problem. the supreme court agreed this was unacceptable. they provided the narrow pathway for abortion clinics to take this to federal court and pursue their case there. however, they were disappointed the court did not block the law in the meantime. the conservative justices refused to grant the request that the lobby put on hold while the legal action was taken place. that was a big disappointment they said because it is an extreme law that bans artions at roughly six weeks and has created great difficulties for women seeking abortions. >> where could things go from here? you mentioned activists could have a narrow pathway. what might happen next? >> one of the people involved in the abortion providers' case, we don't know what will happen. they will pursue their case in federal court. i believe that can be app
, the federal courts step in and block those laws. the state of texas is not responsible for enforcing the law. it has passed that task to any ordinary citizen. ordinary citizens cannot be taken to federal court. this was the problem. the supreme court agreed this was unacceptable. they provided the narrow pathway for abortion clinics to take this to federal court and pursue their case there. however, they were disappointed the court did not block the law in the meantime. the conservative...
168
168
Jul 1, 2012
07/12
by
KQED
tv
eye 168
favorite 0
quote 0
obamacare was bad law yesterday, it's bad law today. let me tell you why i say that. obamacare raises taxes on the american people by approximately $500 billion. obamacare cuts medicare, cuts medicare by approximately $500 billion. and even with those cuts, and tax increases, obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt and pushes those obligations on the coming generations. >> mr. romney also said obamacare means 20 million americans will lose the coverage they like. obamacare is a job killer. obamacare makes the government too big, too intrusive. >> if we want to get have to replace president obama. >> question. rate romney's reaction. did it have merit, or was it rhetoric? james? >> he's certainly right on the fact at least immediately if you want to replace obamacare. it's not going to happen in ngress now unless he's elected and gets a republican senate, a republican house, then could it possibly be repealed. i wish he would have taken the opportunity to talk about his own healthcare plan. >> it certainly does dramatically accentuate the fund
obamacare was bad law yesterday, it's bad law today. let me tell you why i say that. obamacare raises taxes on the american people by approximately $500 billion. obamacare cuts medicare, cuts medicare by approximately $500 billion. and even with those cuts, and tax increases, obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt and pushes those obligations on the coming generations. >> mr. romney also said obamacare means 20 million americans will lose the coverage they like....
32
32
Aug 3, 2018
08/18
by
KQED
tv
eye 32
favorite 0
quote 0
after legislating a series of laws starting with ngo law and boycott law and a series of laws to farrow the democratic space of israel and stress the nationalistic character over the democratic one. >> i want to say briefly to viewers who don't understand the actual point because supporters and analysts say this is really about words and as you say, potentially a political deal, a political ploy ahead of potential elections. what will it actually change? actually, two main points here. one is the general spirit, even i would say, the atmosphere of this law. taking the beautiful declaration of independence and replacing it with not a very elegant text that is supposed to be a constitutional principle, really to the best part, unnecessary, but the others are specific clauses in the law that clearly hurt the policy and one is the one insured the supremacy of jewish settlement and jewish inhabitants over their quality and promising the same rights to everyone including minorities. the other is, for example, downloading the status of the arab language that used to be a formal language alongs
after legislating a series of laws starting with ngo law and boycott law and a series of laws to farrow the democratic space of israel and stress the nationalistic character over the democratic one. >> i want to say briefly to viewers who don't understand the actual point because supporters and analysts say this is really about words and as you say, potentially a political deal, a political ploy ahead of potential elections. what will it actually change? actually, two main points here....
0
0.0
Jun 4, 2023
06/23
by
KQED
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
>> two days ago, a federal court throughout a law that blocked application of state laws under preemption doctrine. states can restrict child labor lawfully, it cannot expand child labor lawfully. on many points -- i disagree there is some sort of consortium of big business. most of the violations i have been looking at were from rogue actors or franchisees. i was chief hr officer for coca-cola enterprises worldwide and we had some rogue actors. it might send a signal to these rogue actors that it's ok to do this until you get caught because the fines are fairly minimal. i don't think the laws will stand to the extent loosen. i think wisconsin allows 14-year-olds to serve alcohol. it's hard to imagine a 14-year-old serving cocktail waitress in some honky-tonk in this country. these won't stand, but the signals they may send our bad ones. >> about these being rogue actors as opposed to orchestrated larger attempts, would you like to weigh in on that? >> sure. i think with violations of y laws, there are rogue actors and larger systemic issues. with many of the recent child labor violations
>> two days ago, a federal court throughout a law that blocked application of state laws under preemption doctrine. states can restrict child labor lawfully, it cannot expand child labor lawfully. on many points -- i disagree there is some sort of consortium of big business. most of the violations i have been looking at were from rogue actors or franchisees. i was chief hr officer for coca-cola enterprises worldwide and we had some rogue actors. it might send a signal to these rogue...
129
129
Jun 25, 2012
06/12
by
KQED
tv
eye 129
favorite 0
quote 0
does the state law conflict with the federal law. and has congress so comprehensively legislated in a particular area that there's no room for the state law? so justice kennedy went through each of the three remaining provisions and found that they either conflicted with federal immigration law or congress had created a comprehensive scheme. for example, the provision requiring or making it a right for an illegal alien not to register or carry papers under the arizona law. justice kennedy said congress has created a comprehensive and unified system of tracking illegal aliens in this country and so it was preempted because congress had occupied the field. >> woodruff: three provisions were knocked down. three elements of the law. but there was a dissent. three of the conservative justices argued that they disagreed. >> justices scalia, toms as and alito wrote separate dissents. justice scalia read a summary of his dissent from the bench. basically he said that states have always been considered sovereign entities. it is inherent in so
does the state law conflict with the federal law. and has congress so comprehensively legislated in a particular area that there's no room for the state law? so justice kennedy went through each of the three remaining provisions and found that they either conflicted with federal immigration law or congress had created a comprehensive scheme. for example, the provision requiring or making it a right for an illegal alien not to register or carry papers under the arizona law. justice kennedy said...
66
66
Oct 3, 2015
10/15
by
KQED
tv
eye 66
favorite 0
quote 0
how much time do you think that office should be given to make the laws the current laws work? >> if every independent analyst said the laws are unworkable and unenforceable, no amount of time is going to make them magically transform into something else. >> mr. cannon, what is your biggest proposition to prop f. >> proposition f takes an extreme approach to regulations that exist. the fact of the matter short-term is pursuing and the city goes after dozens of people who violated the rules and leveeing hundreds of thousands of fines. proposition f goes way too far. it gives neighbors the opportunity to sue each other over perceived violations. it mandates some people report where they're sleeping at night to the city and the city will track and hold on to the information and bans the in-law unit in san francisco. this measure was patched together and is the wrong direction for san francisco and does not give existing laws the chance to work. >> let's break this down. you brought up three points of opposition. the lawsuit issue. your organization said allowing lawsuits against h
how much time do you think that office should be given to make the laws the current laws work? >> if every independent analyst said the laws are unworkable and unenforceable, no amount of time is going to make them magically transform into something else. >> mr. cannon, what is your biggest proposition to prop f. >> proposition f takes an extreme approach to regulations that exist. the fact of the matter short-term is pursuing and the city goes after dozens of people who...
41
41
Feb 14, 2015
02/15
by
KQED
tv
eye 41
favorite 0
quote 0
what law enforcement is doing. it's what the criminal groups are doing with technology, which it's hard for law enforcement to keep pace. we're always behind in that realm. shafer: david, what should local communities, local governments, and citizens -- what should they be thinking about? what questions should they be asking? greene: well, i think a good question to ask, really, is what is the relationship between government and its citizenry? and, to me, a government really should be really hesitant to enter into a relationship where it's just constantly collecting information. i think it's very easy -- what i've seen -- you see it with the n.s.a., and you see it on the local level -- is that having the ability to collect information -- it seems innocuous and it seems easy -- it becomes difficult to stop. shafer: and, mike sena from someone from the inside of this kind of an operation what questions do you ask of the people who are overseeing what you do? sena: you know, the hard part is that expectation of privac
what law enforcement is doing. it's what the criminal groups are doing with technology, which it's hard for law enforcement to keep pace. we're always behind in that realm. shafer: david, what should local communities, local governments, and citizens -- what should they be thinking about? what questions should they be asking? greene: well, i think a good question to ask, really, is what is the relationship between government and its citizenry? and, to me, a government really should be really...
41
41
Jan 17, 2021
01/21
by
KQED
tv
eye 41
favorite 0
quote 0
law review. is that true? ruth: so far, yes. david: so far? oh. and you have a son who's in the music business? ruth: james makes exquisite compact discs. james grew up with a passion for music, but no talent as a performer. [laughter] so when he went to the university of chicago, he was a classical disc jockey on the student radio station. david: ok. ruth: then, in the years he was dropping in and out of law school, he was also making recordings, and one day he told us he liked what he was doing much more than his law classes. so we said, "fine. that's what you want to do." david: ok. ruth: and today his label is cedille, and his recordings are gems. david: so do you have any grandchildren? ruth: i have 4 grandchildren, two step-grandchildren, and one great-grandchild. david: ok. [applause] and what do your, uh-- do your grandchildren call you "rbg" or what do they call you? [laughter] ruth: i'm a jewish grandmother, so i am called "bubbe." david: ok, so when you went to cornell, your grades wer
law review. is that true? ruth: so far, yes. david: so far? oh. and you have a son who's in the music business? ruth: james makes exquisite compact discs. james grew up with a passion for music, but no talent as a performer. [laughter] so when he went to the university of chicago, he was a classical disc jockey on the student radio station. david: ok. ruth: then, in the years he was dropping in and out of law school, he was also making recordings, and one day he told us he liked what he was...
0
0.0
Mar 19, 2023
03/23
by
KQED
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
laws. the growing struggle many to recover the costs of their furry friends veterinary care. >> i did not have the money to take her when she needed to go. it is $100 to walk through the door, no matter what you are getting done. >> the pros and cons for student athletes taking advantage of the ncaa's name, image, and likeness. >> major funding for pbs news weekend has been provided by -- >> for 25 years, consumer cellular's goal has been to provide wireless service that helps people communicate and connect. we offer a variety of no contract plans and our u.s.-based customer team can find one that fits you. visit consumercellular.tv. >> and with the ongoing support of these individuals and institutions. and friends of the newshour. this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> good evening. i'm john yang. former president trump took two social media to say he expects to be arrested tues
laws. the growing struggle many to recover the costs of their furry friends veterinary care. >> i did not have the money to take her when she needed to go. it is $100 to walk through the door, no matter what you are getting done. >> the pros and cons for student athletes taking advantage of the ncaa's name, image, and likeness. >> major funding for pbs news weekend has been provided by -- >> for 25 years, consumer cellular's goal has been to provide wireless service that...
182
182
Nov 21, 2015
11/15
by
KQED
tv
eye 182
favorite 0
quote 0
and we know law enforcement and u.s. intelligence feel very confident this week they're in a good position to make this argument in the context of what's happening around the world. we know there was a meeting today here in washington involving technology companies and capitol hill aides in which they talked about a path forward on encryption. what that path is still remains to be seen. but negotiations definitely are going on right now on this issue here in washington. >> all right. thank you so much both of you, daniel wiesner. i know we'll be talking more with you about this. and eamon javers, as always, thank you so much. >> you bet. >>> coming up, google making a big move and ramping up its rivalry with two other tech companies. we'll tell you what it's all about. ♪ ♪ >>> a class action lawsuit related to daily fantasy sports targets, credit card companies. the suit claims that visa, mastercard, american express, and others participated in a racketeering scheme that facilitated illegal gambling operations. the c
and we know law enforcement and u.s. intelligence feel very confident this week they're in a good position to make this argument in the context of what's happening around the world. we know there was a meeting today here in washington involving technology companies and capitol hill aides in which they talked about a path forward on encryption. what that path is still remains to be seen. but negotiations definitely are going on right now on this issue here in washington. >> all right....
103
103
Jun 29, 2012
06/12
by
KQED
tv
eye 103
favorite 0
quote 0
that was found constitutional, other parts of the law also stand. insurance companies cannot disqualify people who have a preexisting illness, they can't raise rates on the chronically sick and children can remain on their parent's plans until the age of 26. there was one setback for the law, the court said that congress cannot force the states to expand medicaid to cover more of the poor. we have a team of correspondents covering the story, our chief legal correspondent jan crawford is at the supreme court and, jan, it was a complicated decision today, the majority rejected the president's main argument, but still found a way to support his law. >> well, that's right, scott, for a lot of people the central question in this case was whether or not congress could force you to buy a product. here insurance from a private company, and today the court said congress did have that kind of power. so while they upheld the law, they still imposed significant restrictions on what congress can do going forward. >> proponents cheered when they heard supreme cou
that was found constitutional, other parts of the law also stand. insurance companies cannot disqualify people who have a preexisting illness, they can't raise rates on the chronically sick and children can remain on their parent's plans until the age of 26. there was one setback for the law, the court said that congress cannot force the states to expand medicaid to cover more of the poor. we have a team of correspondents covering the story, our chief legal correspondent jan crawford is at the...
152
152
Jul 28, 2010
07/10
by
KQED
tv
eye 152
favorite 0
quote 0
school of law. were you happy with today's ruling? >>i think so. i think the plaintiffs and department of justice got everything they wanted of justice and as i said previously on the show there were serious threshold constitutional issues about the state interfearing in federal power that have long-term consequences so i ink the judge made the right call. >> ifill: michael? >> i'm relieved as one of the attorneys that was part of the senator's braintrust that worked on the issues over the years. it could have been worse. we could have this a radical jump judge but almost all points were technical and it would be very easy to fix. as a matter of fact, i was down in virginia meeting with virginia legislators on how to do their version of sb-1070 when they got the bill and it was a sad face when the order came off the machine worked on it provision by provision and were relieved. >> ifill: when judge bolten said the state overstepped it's authority you think it's a tech technicality. >> she gave them
school of law. were you happy with today's ruling? >>i think so. i think the plaintiffs and department of justice got everything they wanted of justice and as i said previously on the show there were serious threshold constitutional issues about the state interfearing in federal power that have long-term consequences so i ink the judge made the right call. >> ifill: michael? >> i'm relieved as one of the attorneys that was part of the senator's braintrust that worked on the...
294
294
Feb 2, 2011
02/11
by
KQED
tv
eye 294
favorite 0
quote 0
were parties to the lawsuit, this is the law of the land. this is an administration which says they believe in the rule of law and right now they're saying we don't care what a district court judge says, we have other ideas in this regard. they haven't changed the legal status of those 26 states in this case who according to the latest legal ruling until it changes or there's a stay event ruling, this is against the law to force us to do something. in most case what is applies to the state is whether they do... they can't make changes to their medicaid program. these are states on the brink of bankruptcy, about to have other fiscal holds explode and they're being told you can't change anything about your eligibility levels when maybe you'll get some money three years from now for this other expansion to newly eligible people. that's what's troubling governors who can't pay for education, can't pay for the rest of their governments and they're wondering why they're being held up for this particular medicaid expansion. >> the judge had the pow
were parties to the lawsuit, this is the law of the land. this is an administration which says they believe in the rule of law and right now they're saying we don't care what a district court judge says, we have other ideas in this regard. they haven't changed the legal status of those 26 states in this case who according to the latest legal ruling until it changes or there's a stay event ruling, this is against the law to force us to do something. in most case what is applies to the state is...
0
0.0
Mar 20, 2024
03/24
by
KQED
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
the last few hours have been legal whiplash for this law. as we speak now, where do things stand with the law and its implementation? >> right now, it is not law and another hearing is expected in early april which will decide whether to allow some provisions of that law to continue while litigation against it is being ruled on so the statement in court today to discuss it and initially, texas argued that this law should be enforced while litigation against it is pending. but by the end of the hearing had some questioning by the judges, the state asked if at the very least that state officers could arrest migrants to give them federal immigration -- give them over to federal immigration authorities, but the judges said that this was already something that they do with current trespassing laws because migrants have already been arrested for that under operation lone star but just to clarify, that law is not law even though it was for a few hours yesterday evening. amna: what are you hearing from those texas state officials? police department
the last few hours have been legal whiplash for this law. as we speak now, where do things stand with the law and its implementation? >> right now, it is not law and another hearing is expected in early april which will decide whether to allow some provisions of that law to continue while litigation against it is being ruled on so the statement in court today to discuss it and initially, texas argued that this law should be enforced while litigation against it is pending. but by the end...
0
0.0
Jun 25, 2022
06/22
by
KQED
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
republicans and conservatives like me have always believed in the rule of law and seen the rule of law as a fundamental part of the country. donald trump brought, from election day onward, more than 60 cases to challenge the results of elections. those cases were all adjudicated. donald trump had his day and the principle of the rule of law is that after you get your day in court -- you have the right to bring the cases -- but the principle is, is that you accept the decisions and move on. >> look, when you reflect on where the republican party is, how do you think we got here? >> i think we got here, really, because the party was unsure of itself and which direction to take in 2016. i think the party, as a whole, in its desires to win sort of went along with donald trump, warts and all. >> yeah. >> and i think there was an inability or a lack of desire to see precisely what would come from that. >> in 2000, the florida race was separated by 537 votes. there was a feeling amongst republicans, that i recall, that al gore's rejection of the election result in florida was destabilizing an
republicans and conservatives like me have always believed in the rule of law and seen the rule of law as a fundamental part of the country. donald trump brought, from election day onward, more than 60 cases to challenge the results of elections. those cases were all adjudicated. donald trump had his day and the principle of the rule of law is that after you get your day in court -- you have the right to bring the cases -- but the principle is, is that you accept the decisions and move on....
89
89
Oct 27, 2016
10/16
by
KQED
tv
eye 89
favorite 0
quote 0
and yet that court shut down one federal law after another, one state law after another, on the ground that they discriminateed arbitrarily on the basis of gender. >> rose: so what does that say about the way the court works? you know, and time. >> well, there's a great-- there was a great constitutional law professor who said the courts should never be influenced by the weather of the day. but inevitably it will be influenced by the climate of the era. and that's what the court of the '70s was influenced by. >> rose: and is that what the court of the 21st century has been with respect to marriage, equality, and same-sex marriage, influenced by what was happening in the larger community? the climate. >> i am wondering whether i should answer it or-- . >> why are you wondering. >> she gets more cover than i do >> rose: that is an interesting expression in itself. she gets more cover than i do. meaning-- she's given more what? >> latitude? >> well, i think so. and rightfully so. she's earned it. no, no, no. she has fully earned it. >> it's only because i'm old enough to be her mother. (l
and yet that court shut down one federal law after another, one state law after another, on the ground that they discriminateed arbitrarily on the basis of gender. >> rose: so what does that say about the way the court works? you know, and time. >> well, there's a great-- there was a great constitutional law professor who said the courts should never be influenced by the weather of the day. but inevitably it will be influenced by the climate of the era. and that's what the court of...
48
48
Aug 22, 2017
08/17
by
KQED
tv
eye 48
favorite 0
quote 0
tonight we hear about the court and the love of law from two justices. let me take note of the fact they both have written books. justice sotomayor's was called my beloved world. justice ginsburg was called my own words, which is a compilation of speeches and essays she's written. looking back on your life, justice ginsburg, and thinking even though it was incorporated in speeches, what was that like for you to put your own life in focus and how was that? >> my own words, as you said, is a collection of speeches, bench announcements, tributes to colleagues.q@ it's not -- >> rose: a biography. it's not a biography of me to the extent my life is told, it's in the introductory passages that my official biographers wrote. that biography will come out sometime in the distant future. ( laughter ) >> rose: your book, my beloved world, you said i am my mother. what did you mean? >> as i tell her, good and bad. ( laughter ) i am my mother's drive. she aspired to be more than her circumstances. she wanted to go -- desperately go to college, and she lived in the po
tonight we hear about the court and the love of law from two justices. let me take note of the fact they both have written books. justice sotomayor's was called my beloved world. justice ginsburg was called my own words, which is a compilation of speeches and essays she's written. looking back on your life, justice ginsburg, and thinking even though it was incorporated in speeches, what was that like for you to put your own life in focus and how was that? >> my own words, as you said, is...
5
5.0
Mar 27, 2021
03/21
by
KQED
tv
eye 5
favorite 0
quote 0
and he looked at the gun laws in missouri and what happened when missouri loosened their gun laws. let me just read you this one thing that he wrote. he said, "in 2015, white men comprised roughly 40% of the population of missouri but were victims of nearly 80% of gun suicides." that's in missouri. in documenting what happened when they loosened their gun laws. and so i think something needs to be done to limit the number of guns in people's hands, but also, limit the number of guns, to david's point, that are awash in the country. >> woodruff: do something-- everybody agrees, or a lot of people agree we need to do something, david. but as we heard president biden say yesterday, or suggest, you know, the likelihood that something is going to happen quickly, there's going to be some agreement, the chances of that are almost vanishingly small. >> before i get to, that i just want to emphasize, though mental health is a problem for some people who commit gun violence, most people who suffer from mental health issues are not violent. just to make that clear. one of the problems-- the v
and he looked at the gun laws in missouri and what happened when missouri loosened their gun laws. let me just read you this one thing that he wrote. he said, "in 2015, white men comprised roughly 40% of the population of missouri but were victims of nearly 80% of gun suicides." that's in missouri. in documenting what happened when they loosened their gun laws. and so i think something needs to be done to limit the number of guns in people's hands, but also, limit the number of guns,...
109
109
Mar 26, 2012
03/12
by
KQED
tv
eye 109
favorite 0
quote 0
it's a big, big law. there are many many sections that have nothing to do with either insurance reform or with the individual mandate or even employer mandates. but people are still nervous about this. until the court issues the final ruling and says this, that or on the other on these issues of the individual mandate or severability, people are watching. >> ifill: even though the justices spent a lot of time talking about the details, none of them seemed to think or seemed to be behaving like they weren't going to take this casement they were looking forward to the mandate argument we're expecting tomorrow. i want to ask you about that but i also want to play audio from an exchange between chief justice roberts and one of the attorneys who was representing the small business folks. >> the whole point of the suit is to prevent the collection of penalties. >> of taxes, mr. chief justice. >> prevent the collection of taxes. but the idea that the mandate is something separate, whether you want to call it a p
it's a big, big law. there are many many sections that have nothing to do with either insurance reform or with the individual mandate or even employer mandates. but people are still nervous about this. until the court issues the final ruling and says this, that or on the other on these issues of the individual mandate or severability, people are watching. >> ifill: even though the justices spent a lot of time talking about the details, none of them seemed to think or seemed to be behaving...
177
177
Nov 28, 2012
11/12
by
KQED
tv
eye 177
favorite 0
quote 0
i think law professors, those interested in the law. you don't have to be a lawyer to be interested in what the supreme court is doing or thinks it is doing. i think it is a window into that world. it describes what the alternative modes of interpretation are and if one is interested in what -- you know, what real conflict in the court is, it is not -- it is not politics, it is not democratic versus republican, it is the different approaches to interpretation that are described in this book. >> rose: even though i said i would never ask you a question that i knew you hadn't thought about before and hadn't been asked before and hadn't dismissed before -- >> well -- you already asked one about how i would grade myself. >> rose: that is true. and you didn't answer yet. >> i am not going to. >> but it is -- and what this conversation shows the passion that you feel about this idea, you know, this being not a strict constructionist but being a textual list that is at the core of your being. >> it really is .. >> i mean that is your life's fi
i think law professors, those interested in the law. you don't have to be a lawyer to be interested in what the supreme court is doing or thinks it is doing. i think it is a window into that world. it describes what the alternative modes of interpretation are and if one is interested in what -- you know, what real conflict in the court is, it is not -- it is not politics, it is not democratic versus republican, it is the different approaches to interpretation that are described in this book....
373
373
Feb 2, 2013
02/13
by
KQED
tv
eye 373
favorite 0
quote 0
legislators never funded the law. they said that supervisors in each of california's 58 counties had to implement and pay for it. only one county, nevada county, where laura lived, has opted in. it sits in the foothills of the sierra nevada mountain and has fewer than 100,000 residents. >> this is a tool that's been missing forever from our mental health providing statutes. >> reporter: at the nevada county courthouse, presiding judge thomas anderson says the law has been effective in getting people into treatment and in avoiding time-consuming court hearings. >> it's saving tons of time getting people into treatment when they need it and the results have been very, very good. in the first couple years we saved a half a million dollars. in our small county. which is a huge factor. >> reporter: but forcing the mentally ill into treatment remains a point of contention. many patients resent being ordered to receive treatment. 36-year-old jonathan morer is here at turning point community programs in nevada city for a long
legislators never funded the law. they said that supervisors in each of california's 58 counties had to implement and pay for it. only one county, nevada county, where laura lived, has opted in. it sits in the foothills of the sierra nevada mountain and has fewer than 100,000 residents. >> this is a tool that's been missing forever from our mental health providing statutes. >> reporter: at the nevada county courthouse, presiding judge thomas anderson says the law has been effective...
68
68
Sep 20, 2020
09/20
by
KQED
tv
eye 68
favorite 0
quote 0
into law. so even in dissent, she had a powerful influence. >> sreenivasan: amy, i want to ask, in the-- now we have justice kagan. we have justice sotomayor. before bader ginsburg, we had sandra day o'connor. what does she add into thimix? >> she often talked about how justice o'connor sort of-- "mentored" may have been a strong word, but really sort of helped her along when she arrived on the bench and, you know, when she was assigned her first opinion. frequently, the first opinion for a new justice is a relatively straightforward one, butustice ginsburg thought it was a relatively complicated one, and justice o'connor, who was, you know, really just sort of no nonsense, said to her, "just-- just get it done, ruth, before the-- he assigns you the next opinion." and i think she tried to carry that forward with the new female justices, trying to, you know, to help them get settled in. >> sreenivasan: what was she like on the bench? what did she add to the questioning process? >> she was very s
into law. so even in dissent, she had a powerful influence. >> sreenivasan: amy, i want to ask, in the-- now we have justice kagan. we have justice sotomayor. before bader ginsburg, we had sandra day o'connor. what does she add into thimix? >> she often talked about how justice o'connor sort of-- "mentored" may have been a strong word, but really sort of helped her along when she arrived on the bench and, you know, when she was assigned her first opinion. frequently, the...
2,516
2.5K
Jan 16, 2014
01/14
by
KQED
tv
eye 2,516
favorite 0
quote 6
the challenges to the massachusetts law claimed that the law it self-is what we call content based. it discriminates on the basis of viewpoint, that its effect of the buffer zone is really to curb the speech of people without do not support abortions. it also, they also argue that it's not a narrowly tailored law which is really one of the requirements under the first amendment if government wants to recognize late speech. that the buffer zone is around only abortion facilities, and not even all-- not even-- it's around facilities that some don't even have problems with demonstrators or protestors. and finally they aring that the government has other tools available to deal with the problem that it says and argues is why it has the law that it has. it can get injunctions from courts. it can have police move people. on the other side the state is saying look, this is not viewpoint discrimination what we are regulating here is conduct. the problem is congestion, too many people on the sidewalk, too many people trying to approach women and relatives in cars as they drive not parking lo
the challenges to the massachusetts law claimed that the law it self-is what we call content based. it discriminates on the basis of viewpoint, that its effect of the buffer zone is really to curb the speech of people without do not support abortions. it also, they also argue that it's not a narrowly tailored law which is really one of the requirements under the first amendment if government wants to recognize late speech. that the buffer zone is around only abortion facilities, and not even...
111
111
Mar 27, 2013
03/13
by
KQED
tv
eye 111
favorite 0
quote 0
in 1996, it was really clear that the law was you take state marriage laws as you find them. you fold married people-- whether they have differences in racial restriction in the past or first cousins, second cousins if you were married in the state, they changed the rule to make sure married same-sex couples would not be included. quiet becomes is there a justification for making a new rule? and the justification that's been advanced by mr. clement is really around this idea of uniformity, that it's important to treat all gay people alike. but we have a system-- when we're talking about federal marital benefits and burdens-- of treating married people. and we have an anomaly where we're treating married gay people as though they're unmarried as opposed to treating all married people aligning, whether they're gay or nongay. the uniformity thing doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. >> woodruff: how do you answer that? >> i think there is a legitimate federal role here. the reason i raise polygamy isn't to raise a far-off issue. litigation has started. jonathan turley, a profess
in 1996, it was really clear that the law was you take state marriage laws as you find them. you fold married people-- whether they have differences in racial restriction in the past or first cousins, second cousins if you were married in the state, they changed the rule to make sure married same-sex couples would not be included. quiet becomes is there a justification for making a new rule? and the justification that's been advanced by mr. clement is really around this idea of uniformity, that...
210
210
Dec 15, 2011
12/11
by
KQED
tv
eye 210
favorite 0
quote 0
laws. we begin with some background. millions of potential voters may not be able to cast votes in 2012, after a dozen states put new restrictions in place this year. six states passed laws that limit early voting. and eight states will now require voters to present state- issued photo identification cards in order to cast a ballot. previously, only indiana and georgia had strict photo i.d. requirements. the obama justice department is now objecting to the new laws. attorney general eric holder spoke last night in austin, texas at the presidential library of lyndon b. johnson who signed the voting rights act in 1965. >> we need election systems that are free from fraud, discrimination, and partisan influence and that are more, not less, accessible to the citizens of this country. >> ifill: republicans who control the state houses where many of the changes became law say they are designed to prevent fraud. supporters protested last night outside holder's texas speech. >> we're not here to su
laws. we begin with some background. millions of potential voters may not be able to cast votes in 2012, after a dozen states put new restrictions in place this year. six states passed laws that limit early voting. and eight states will now require voters to present state- issued photo identification cards in order to cast a ballot. previously, only indiana and georgia had strict photo i.d. requirements. the obama justice department is now objecting to the new laws. attorney general eric holder...
80
80
Nov 9, 2013
11/13
by
KQED
tv
eye 80
favorite 0
quote 0
the new law takes effect january 1st. scott shafer sat down with sunnyvale's mayor to find out what inspired him to push for the law. >> mayor, welcome. >> thank you. thank you for having me. >> you really pushed for measure "c." to put it on the ballot and get it passed. what made you so passionate? >> many things. but the one that drove the point home was the unfortunate incident at newtown where young children that actually this past year should have been going to school are not going to school. that made me angry. we hear about all these tragic shootings across the country. and we feel sorry for them. and, you know, we have compassion for them. but i don't think anything made me as angry as that did. >> what were you angry at? >> the fact that it happened. how could such a tragedy happen? how could they -- not they. how could something like that, how could anyone even think about hurting young children? they're starting in life, they're enjoying life, they're a pleasure to have. they're exciting to be around. and some
the new law takes effect january 1st. scott shafer sat down with sunnyvale's mayor to find out what inspired him to push for the law. >> mayor, welcome. >> thank you. thank you for having me. >> you really pushed for measure "c." to put it on the ballot and get it passed. what made you so passionate? >> many things. but the one that drove the point home was the unfortunate incident at newtown where young children that actually this past year should have been...
36
36
Apr 21, 2018
04/18
by
KQED
tv
eye 36
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> i didn't go to law school. so i try to law off those. i'm a political scientist. just speaking politically, i think the state sanctuary law, while it was a very carefully designed law, it was certainly in a political realm, opened the door for local governments where republicans are strong, to become a resistance to a state law as opposed to just another -- i do agree with joe that this is the animating issue in the republican party and it's the reason trump became president. just asemocrats sometimes dream that everybody agrees. i don't think the general public has that same feeling. what helps gin up repub turnout in these races will also gin up democratic turnout. the gas tax hasn't really gone anywhere. there's not enough republican candidates statewide. this is it, this is the one ke and midterm elections as all of our guests know are not abo persuasion, they're about motivation and mobilization. le, we have the deployment of the national guard troops. governor jerry brown said he won't do it. but they won't be involved -- he will do it, but they won't be inv
. >> i didn't go to law school. so i try to law off those. i'm a political scientist. just speaking politically, i think the state sanctuary law, while it was a very carefully designed law, it was certainly in a political realm, opened the door for local governments where republicans are strong, to become a resistance to a state law as opposed to just another -- i do agree with joe that this is the animating issue in the republican party and it's the reason trump became president. just...
0
0.0
Mar 14, 2024
03/24
by
KQED
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
the law was vague. moving forward as we heard in your clip, parents and teachers and students will be able to speak freely and write freely about gender identity and sexuality in classroom discussions, on essays and on projects. kids can read books again with gay characters, teachers can have gay state alliances and other lgbtq clubs at schools. it really gutted large parts of the law and clarified its. reporter: but the law remains in effect. what restrictions are still in place? >> the law still bans outright instruction about gender identity and sexuality in florida. that would include a class or a book or even a unit in a section of a textbook that would instruct people in any way about gender identity and sexuality. the law is still in effect as well as a lot of the policies that were inspired by the law. like banding ap african-american history because there was a queer theory unit or making it so that sociology is no longer a core curriculum course for undergrads because it talked about human sex
the law was vague. moving forward as we heard in your clip, parents and teachers and students will be able to speak freely and write freely about gender identity and sexuality in classroom discussions, on essays and on projects. kids can read books again with gay characters, teachers can have gay state alliances and other lgbtq clubs at schools. it really gutted large parts of the law and clarified its. reporter: but the law remains in effect. what restrictions are still in place? >> the...
226
226
Jul 31, 2010
07/10
by
KQED
tv
eye 226
favorite 0
quote 0
they're challenging the law before it goes into effect. what arizona is saying is we promise, we're not going to racially profile. wait till we do it. watch us in action. that's a better argument, maybe, to make after it's put into effect. but the justice department wanted it challenged before it went into effect. gwen: purely from a political point of view, especially with the argument that it's not a decision just happening before the electric, did anything that happened this week put this off on the back burner, or did it just inflame the issue of immigration to the extent that people get inflamed over this issue periodically? >> there seems to be a certain amount of scheduled outrage that unfolded in arizona. i think a lot of people were going to have protests on the day the law was scheduled to go into effect, no matter what the judge said. so we saw that play out a little bit. but the governor is already saying, well, the court pointed out some problems. and both sides admit this law was not well drafted. there were ambiguous things
they're challenging the law before it goes into effect. what arizona is saying is we promise, we're not going to racially profile. wait till we do it. watch us in action. that's a better argument, maybe, to make after it's put into effect. but the justice department wanted it challenged before it went into effect. gwen: purely from a political point of view, especially with the argument that it's not a decision just happening before the electric, did anything that happened this week put this...
461
461
Dec 8, 2010
12/10
by
KQED
tv
eye 461
favorite 0
quote 0
does fit within that exception in the federal law for licensing laws. but mr. phillips and mr. conte said this is not a licensing law. traditionally that's a law that says you're fit to do business. on its face they said this law is a pubishment law. >> ifill: because it's saying you're not fit to do business. the other way around. >> and here are some heavy sanctions we're going to impose if you hire an unauthorized worker. >> ifill: did other members of the court, other justices weigh in? >> yes, when arizona's attorney stepped forward, that was arizona's solicitor general mary o'grady, she said this is a licensing law, it's a fit-to-do-business law. we're saying in arizona if you hire an unauthorized worker, we're going to take an action related to your fitness to do business. we will impose a range of sanctions depending on the severity and the repetition of the violation. so she ran into some questions, sceptical questioning from justice ginsburg, who noted, okay, well, arizona mandates that employers use e-verify. that's a federal program that's v
does fit within that exception in the federal law for licensing laws. but mr. phillips and mr. conte said this is not a licensing law. traditionally that's a law that says you're fit to do business. on its face they said this law is a pubishment law. >> ifill: because it's saying you're not fit to do business. the other way around. >> and here are some heavy sanctions we're going to impose if you hire an unauthorized worker. >> ifill: did other members of the court, other...
83
83
Feb 1, 2017
02/17
by
KQED
tv
eye 83
favorite 0
quote 0
someone who looks at the law and tries to make the best decision by the likes of the law not by his or her own personal belief. and so i think it's a home run hit by the president. i think democrats would be quite fool orish to oppose this nomin. i think smart democrats will wait for the next nominee who might replace justice kennedy and say well you know now that's a swing vote for the court. but i think opposition to this nominee is just foolish. if you're upset because chief judge garland who is eminently qualified didn't get it, you know, yes. but there was an election, you know and now president trump picked someone qualified who is not outside the mainstream if you will and should be confirmed. >> liz beat we're hearing andrew mcbride compare neil gorsuch to the man president obama picked for the court who didn't make it. >> i think it remains to be seen whether or not there's going to be a fighter o fight or not. i think people are starting out with fight in them. this seat was teo this is illegitimate but there are people saying we're not taking anything off the table. we want
someone who looks at the law and tries to make the best decision by the likes of the law not by his or her own personal belief. and so i think it's a home run hit by the president. i think democrats would be quite fool orish to oppose this nomin. i think smart democrats will wait for the next nominee who might replace justice kennedy and say well you know now that's a swing vote for the court. but i think opposition to this nominee is just foolish. if you're upset because chief judge garland...
0
0.0
Jun 25, 2022
06/22
by
KQED
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
laws in state -- in place. another 13 will move quickly to ban or severely limit access. 36 million people of reproductive age will live in states without abortion access. >> the hypocrisy is raging. the harm is endless. what this means to women is such an insult. a slap to the face of women about using their own judgment to make their own decisions about their reproductive freedom. >> the political impact coul be felt in elections in november, pollution -- pro-choice democrats believe women will turn off them and large numbers. antiabortion activists you today's victory as merely a first step. there are now take their campaigns to every sta which continues to allow terminations trying to get abortion band in the hole of the united states. sarah smith, bbc news washington. >> as you have heard there are 13 u.s. states that have laws in place already to ban abortion now that roe v. wade has been overturned by the u.s. supreme court. one of them is arkansas. report from an abortion clinic in the state capital of
laws in state -- in place. another 13 will move quickly to ban or severely limit access. 36 million people of reproductive age will live in states without abortion access. >> the hypocrisy is raging. the harm is endless. what this means to women is such an insult. a slap to the face of women about using their own judgment to make their own decisions about their reproductive freedom. >> the political impact coul be felt in elections in november, pollution -- pro-choice democrats...
166
166
Apr 25, 2012
04/12
by
KQED
tv
eye 166
favorite 0
quote 0
the exact phrasing of federal law. so all it says is that if some behavior is prohibited at the federal level then we're going to make it a state crime as well. that is mirroring and supporting the federal government. when the justice department sued arizona that was an unprecedented thing in american because never before has the justice department sued a state for trying to help. >> it is clear that in america we should not have laws in which 50 states have 50 different ways of treating immigration policy. especially laws that can only be enforced by making judgements on whether you have dirt on your boots, the color of your skin, the accent of your voice, or your last name. that is no way to make law enforcement in the united states of america. >> ifill: for more on how the arguments played out inside the court today, we are joined, as always, by marcia coyle of the "national law journal." marcia, in some ways, last time we had a big case at the court it involved health care and it was a rematch of the lawyers involv
the exact phrasing of federal law. so all it says is that if some behavior is prohibited at the federal level then we're going to make it a state crime as well. that is mirroring and supporting the federal government. when the justice department sued arizona that was an unprecedented thing in american because never before has the justice department sued a state for trying to help. >> it is clear that in america we should not have laws in which 50 states have 50 different ways of treating...
73
73
Oct 7, 2016
10/16
by
KQED
tv
eye 73
favorite 0
quote 0
and we've got to decide how american law applies or how does american law apply securities law when you have a plaintiff, australian, he wrote the opinion, is my point. i joined his opinion. he certainly looked to foreign law. and what i am trying to show here is there are many, many cases in many different fields, you can't avoid it. if you are going to decide that case correctly, i can give you case after case. you have to look beyond our shores. i want. >> rose: i want to come back to jus cities-- justice scalia and your opinion. is the best opinion you have ever written, you ever wrote desenting opinion or a majority opinion or a concurring opinion. >> i don't think that's up to me to say. i would say i'm not necessarily a good-- well, maybe the best i ever wrote, i don't know, i have written some majorities that i was very pleased with. one of them is in this case involving a student who thailand who goes to cornel, and-- cornell and he discovers the same text books in bank cot, half the price. says to his parents, send me a few. they sent more than a few. he began to sell nem. >>
and we've got to decide how american law applies or how does american law apply securities law when you have a plaintiff, australian, he wrote the opinion, is my point. i joined his opinion. he certainly looked to foreign law. and what i am trying to show here is there are many, many cases in many different fields, you can't avoid it. if you are going to decide that case correctly, i can give you case after case. you have to look beyond our shores. i want. >> rose: i want to come back to...
152
152
Aug 13, 2013
08/13
by
KQED
tv
eye 152
favorite 0
quote 0
outright baned gay sex that was appealed in 1993. >> it was a soviet law. >> ifill: it was a soviet law. so why aren't they making progress in some ways? >> they were making progress and for a -- it became possible, slightly more space, there were underground nightclubs that then became a little bit more open. but overall the society -- if you compare it to five years in prison for homosexuality which was the soviet standard there's been progress. but still, a news anchor was fired for coming out publicly. what you also have which is very important in russia is just heightened activism and a man who found that he couldn't report the news, keep talking about it as though it was happening to someone else, so he came out publicly which is extremely, extremely rare. so there is a new generation that's out there that is trying to speak up more and kind of assert the ability to come out. the. >> ifill: how much would we be paying attention to this in the broader world if it weren't for the olympics and how much of the coming olympics in february is driving the international debate? >> i think
outright baned gay sex that was appealed in 1993. >> it was a soviet law. >> ifill: it was a soviet law. so why aren't they making progress in some ways? >> they were making progress and for a -- it became possible, slightly more space, there were underground nightclubs that then became a little bit more open. but overall the society -- if you compare it to five years in prison for homosexuality which was the soviet standard there's been progress. but still, a news anchor was...
0
0.0
Jan 29, 2024
01/24
by
KQED
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
a majority of ugandans support the controversial law. and most of its main enforcers have been everyday citizens. a coalition of rights groups documented 281 instances of vigilante abuses against lgbtq + people last year, versus 25 times when the government was behind the abuse. some suffer in silence and can't rely on friends or family. >> as a person i felt suicidal. my family was like, if they give you, they told me themselves, even if they give you the death sentence, for us we shall see it as justice because we believe in god. ali: the law's fate is ultimately up to uganda's constitutional court, but the united states and others hav stepped up pressure to repeal the law and protect the country's community. last august, the world bank halted new loans to uganda and in december, the u.s. imposed visa restrictions on hundredof ugandan officials and their families. ugandan president yoweri museveni dismissed the actions. >> they they try to put pressure on us. "if you don't do this, we should not allow you to go to america." i don't wan
a majority of ugandans support the controversial law. and most of its main enforcers have been everyday citizens. a coalition of rights groups documented 281 instances of vigilante abuses against lgbtq + people last year, versus 25 times when the government was behind the abuse. some suffer in silence and can't rely on friends or family. >> as a person i felt suicidal. my family was like, if they give you, they told me themselves, even if they give you the death sentence, for us we shall...
50
50
Feb 25, 2017
02/17
by
KQED
tv
eye 50
favorite 0
quote 0
consuming protection laws or labor laws. states can fill in that gap. second, if they take inaction as with this ban on immigration that actually causes harm to the people we represent, we can challenge them in court. and this comes up in many different contention texts. ironically, now defending the queen power plan, the rules that were issued by odd bama administration, epa, on green house gases came after my office filed a notion of intent to sue them because they were too slow in following up on the supreme court decision that essentially directed them to do so. so our ability to file lawsuits to protect people, the people we represent from overreach or bad public policy coming out of washington is unusual. and i think that it, we're going to have a new test of the strength of our federalist fabric. the opportunities are there, we're not looking for fights that don't exist but the reason the immigration ban was-- became the first flash point was it took effect immediately. >> even before president trump took office one o
consuming protection laws or labor laws. states can fill in that gap. second, if they take inaction as with this ban on immigration that actually causes harm to the people we represent, we can challenge them in court. and this comes up in many different contention texts. ironically, now defending the queen power plan, the rules that were issued by odd bama administration, epa, on green house gases came after my office filed a notion of intent to sue them because they were too slow in following...
0
0.0
Jun 25, 2022
06/22
by
KQED
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
this decision specifically addressed a law in mississippi but there are many that have trigger laws that will take effect banning abortion in anticipation of this. how will that rollout do you think? >> it's great that you asked that question. already there are more than two dozen states that have what you've named and others have trigger laws. so that means when the supreme court issues a decision like this it would place it in motion with the abortion restrictions in their state. many of them will ban abortion outright. and for others they will dramatically constrain the ability to terminate the pregnancy. and many will no longer provide provisions which shows the cruelty of what has ultimately been upheld. there just getting started. the concurring opinion shows us using this legal theory against privacy and contraception and other rights. how concerned should we be about that? >> we should string together the things that were seeing here. during the time when justice scalia was on the court there was a vine by this concurring opinion making it very clear that they're not finished yet
this decision specifically addressed a law in mississippi but there are many that have trigger laws that will take effect banning abortion in anticipation of this. how will that rollout do you think? >> it's great that you asked that question. already there are more than two dozen states that have what you've named and others have trigger laws. so that means when the supreme court issues a decision like this it would place it in motion with the abortion restrictions in their state. many...
144
144
Jul 24, 2012
07/12
by
KQED
tv
eye 144
favorite 0
quote 0
law. sir elton john >> ifill: still to come on the newshour, attacks and counterattacks in syria; pennsylvania's tough voter i.d. law; sir elton john on aids and his new book; and the life of astronaut sally ride. but first, with the other news of the day, here's hari sreenivasan. >> sreenivasan: wall street slid lower for a third day, partly over renewed fears that europe's debt crisis still is not under control. the dow jones industrial average lost 104 points to close at 12,617. the nasdaq fell 27 points to close just under 2863. the new orleans police department will have to undertake a sweeping program of federally supervised reforms. the u.s. justice department announced the changes today. they include mandatory training on the use of force, new diversity standards for recruitment, and videotaping of interrogations in homicide and sexual assault cases. the measures are aimed at eradicating decades of corruption, mismanagement, and abuse. the city of anaheim, california, braced for mo
law. sir elton john >> ifill: still to come on the newshour, attacks and counterattacks in syria; pennsylvania's tough voter i.d. law; sir elton john on aids and his new book; and the life of astronaut sally ride. but first, with the other news of the day, here's hari sreenivasan. >> sreenivasan: wall street slid lower for a third day, partly over renewed fears that europe's debt crisis still is not under control. the dow jones industrial average lost 104 points to close at 12,617....
35
35
Dec 19, 2020
12/20
by
KQED
tv
eye 35
favorite 0
quote 0
to interpret the law. originalism and textualism are two that many people hear in the headlines, but don't fully understand what they mean. as i understand from yr book, "a republic, if you can keep it," originalism dealsith the intent of the founders in the meaning of the constitution, and textualism deals with t words in statute. did i get it right? >> pretty good. i give you a-minus, margaret. >> how would you -- how would you improve? >> so, i'd say they're really two things of the same idea. one talks about the constitution; the other, statutes. they're labels that have been chosen really by opponents. opponents of originalism call it "originalism." i call it just the enduring constitution, and treating law the way we've always treated legal documents. so, whether it's the constitution or a statute, how should a judge go about interpreting it? and they're really two competing schools of thought. one is, you should follow the original meaning -- the original public meaning of that document. what was it
to interpret the law. originalism and textualism are two that many people hear in the headlines, but don't fully understand what they mean. as i understand from yr book, "a republic, if you can keep it," originalism dealsith the intent of the founders in the meaning of the constitution, and textualism deals with t words in statute. did i get it right? >> pretty good. i give you a-minus, margaret. >> how would you -- how would you improve? >> so, i'd say they're...
249
249
Aug 1, 2016
08/16
by
KQED
tv
eye 249
favorite 0
quote 0
law has been struck down. a federal judge ruled today that north dakota's statute is an undue burden on native americans. it requires a driver's license or other identify cards issued by state or tribal officials. similar laws in north carolina and wisconsin were struck down friday. >> ifill: and, on wall street, the dow jones industrial average lost 27 points to close at 18,404. the nasdaq rose 22 points, and the s&p 500 slipped two. still to come on the newshour: two gold star parents respond to criticism from donald trump; on politics monday, a look at the hyper-charged post-convention campaign; 50 years after a texas mass shooting that changed campus security, and much more. >> woodruff: the convention in philadelphia last week showcased presidents past, present and possibly future. but one man, standing next to his wife, neither of them before in the national spotlight, delivered a speech that's reverberated across american politics. lisa desjardin wraps up today on the campaign trail. >> reporter: for do
law has been struck down. a federal judge ruled today that north dakota's statute is an undue burden on native americans. it requires a driver's license or other identify cards issued by state or tribal officials. similar laws in north carolina and wisconsin were struck down friday. >> ifill: and, on wall street, the dow jones industrial average lost 27 points to close at 18,404. the nasdaq rose 22 points, and the s&p 500 slipped two. still to come on the newshour: two gold star...